Jump to content

Adam Schiff: An open letter to my Republican colleagues


homersapien

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Pretty much 100% of Schiff's letter is hooey. All twisted lies; only a democrat could twist the truth that grossly. Sorry you are such a believer Homer.

I don't suppose you would care to debate a particular point?

I am sorry you guys can't compete directly and would just rather fling poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't suppose you would care to debate a particular point?

I am sorry you guys can't compete directly and would just rather fling poo.

Fine. If the democracy is in peril, it is because of you. Liberals socialists communists. We are divided, because of Obama, and you. The discourse is poisonous because of you. Congress is dysfunctional because of you. 

Paragraph verified. All true statements, just not the real reason.  Proof that Adam is indeed full of hooey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Fine. If the democracy is in peril, it is because of you. Liberals socialists communists. We are divided, because of Obama, and you. The discourse is poisonous because of you. Congress is dysfunctional because of you. 

Paragraph verified. All true statements, just not the real reason.  Proof that Adam is indeed full of hooey.

Good point. 

It's interesting to see the degree of verification people require for the legitimacy of claims they disagree with. Apparently Schiff's line of reasoning, when used from the other side, is not valid. Hmmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There, I fixed that for you. You're welcome. 

If someone asks me a direct question or to defend a statement I said, I answer directly. I don't throw up an article by someone else in response.

You should know that by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Good point. 

It's interesting to see the degree of verification people require for the legitimacy of claims they disagree with. Apparently Schiff's line of reasoning, when used from the other side, is not valid. Hmmmm....

Do you think Trump's emergency declaration is constitutional NOLA?

How do you think SCOTUS will rule on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Fine. If the democracy is in peril, it is because of you. Liberals socialists communists. We are divided, because of Obama, and you. The discourse is poisonous because of you. Congress is dysfunctional because of you. 

Paragraph verified. All true statements, just not the real reason.  Proof that Adam is indeed full of hooey.

Is that what passes for reasoned debate in your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Topic:

This week has given us final proof that we've normalized the Trump era.

We have a president close to trampling over the bedrock of our constitutional system of governance with an emergency declaration to appropriate his own funding for a border wall. At the same time, he is taking even more concrete steps towards legitimizing a nuclear regime by having another ego-stroking sit-down with North Korea’s madman dictator, Kim Jong Un.

On Monday, The Washington Post reported that Trump stood accused of sexually harassing a campaign employee during his run for office in 2016. And in the coming days, the president’s former lawyer—a man closely associated with his business empire and his political rise—will testify three times before Congress about the inherent corruptness of both those ventures.

In any normal universe, any one of these stories would leave us jaw-dropped and politically paralyzed. Lawmakers would be rushing to the cameras to express their concern and condemnation. The media would be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of copy and coverage it would have to produce. Leaks would come from the administration about the profound level of chaos and discontent within.

And yet, this go around, we are all taking it in remarkable stride. It is just another week in Trumpland, and we’ve grown terribly accustomed to these rides.

The public is too overwhelmed to process the Trump overload. We are at the point where this bombardment of Trump—this never-ending fountain of sex, power, Russia, and low-grade corruption—feels perfectly normal. And that’s because it is.

As long as North Korea doesn’t nuke us this week and as long as Michael Cohen doesn’t reveal photographic evidence that Trump and Putin hacked Hillary’s email, this week’s events will recede into the past. Just like any other Trump week.

And what does that really say? For one thing, it means we're not going back. We have reached a new normal. We have adjusted to a different reality. 

Just as you can’t unsee a grisly horror film (and restore that sense of innocence that made something as innocuous as the bogeyman feel frightening), we can’t assume the norms of the past will return when Trump does leave office.

This is true for us all, but it is especially true for conservative Republicans who are holding out hope to (someday) take back their party. What Trump has done throughout his presidency has been antithetical to conservatism.

But think about this week in particular: There is an affront to social conservatives (an allegation of sexual assault); a slap in the face to those who champion human rights (by meeting with Kim); an insult to the anti-corruption crew (with Cohen’s testimony); and a middle finger to the institutionalists (with his emergency declaration). Who is left to claim that their intellectual soul is clean?

Let’s take what are arguably the two most important points: North Korea and the congressional vote on the emergency declaration.

The case against an emergency declaration should be obvious for any constitutional conservative. As I noted recently, if a president can simply bypass Congress by declaring something he wants to do an “emergency,” then the only thing that matters is whether a member of Congress will let him.

If a politician is willing to cede legislative authority to the executive branch—a branch that might soon be headed by a Democrat—it hardly matters if he or she is good on taxes or tariffs. As recently as 2014, nearly every conservative in America was on the record as opposing unilateral executive overreach. What changed?

Likewise, there was a time when sharing the stage with a tinhorn dictator from North Korea would have been viewed as dangerous and beneath the dignity of a president. Conservatives believe in negotiating from a position of strength and rhetorically advocating moral clarity. A president who says he and that dictator “fell in love” would have been downright laughable. This behavior cuts against every foreign policy Reaganite instinct.

So why are so many Republicans enabling this reality show?

I suppose an answer to that question can be found in Mark Leibovich’s new profile on Lindsey Graham. In it, you’ll hear the story of a man consumed with getting re-elected in 2020 and staying relevant politically. And maybe that’s not the worst of motives. You can’t make laws if you don’t have power, after all. And Graham can rightly note that he helped partially reverse Trump’s Syria withdrawal, in addition to bolstering the president’s bold stance in Venezuela.

Graham’s premise is that Trump is already president, and the best you can do is to try to influence him as much as possible. The other option is to go on the record and speak out against Trump’s policies. And do you know who doesn’t have much influence these days? Jeff Flake and Bob Corker.

So this is the sad state of conservatism in the Trump era: You can either have your dignity but no influence or relevance, or you can keep your dignity and hit the pavement. This is essentially the choice we have been given, and although it’s easy to mock those who choose to have influence, it’s debatable whether we owe them our pity or our gratitude.  

They say you never stand so tall as when you stoop to kiss someone’s ass. If this is true, then Trump is surrounded by giants.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Do you think Trump's emergency declaration is constitutional NOLA?

How do you think SCOTUS will rule on it?

Generally speaking, my inclination is "no" to your first question.

To answer your second question with precision, I would need to see how the Court explicitly qualifies "THE QUESTION PRESENTED" - which is commonplace in every issue they consider. It depends on how Counsel, at the outset, articulates the issue, which specific questions they raise, and any relevant amici worthy of consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Generally speaking, my inclination is "no" to your first question.

To answer your second question with precision, I would need to see how the Court explicitly qualifies "THE QUESTION PRESENTED" - which is commonplace in every issue they consider. It depends on how Counsel, at the outset, articulates the issue, which specific questions they raise, and any relevant amici worthy of consideration. 

 Are you are referring to 1) whether or not this qualifies as an emergency and 2) usurping the congressional "power of the purse"?

Seems to me the latter is a slam dunk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 Are you are referring to 1) whether or not this qualifies as an emergency and 2) usurping the congressional "power of the purse"?

Seems to me the latter is a slam dunk. 

I am referring to the question of how exactly the Court will qualify "The Question Presented." They do that in pretty much every case that comes before them. Literally, the court will articulate the issue for review. 

For example, which Constitutional provision(s), statutes, jurisprudence, etc. will the issue proceed through? That has to be considered before guessing how the Court will rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2019 at 6:21 PM, augolf1716 said:

Damn it I'll read it..........................................

You are a good man. I quit at the 3rd paragragh

"For the past two years, we have examined Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its attempts to influence the 2018 midterms."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am referring to the question of how exactly the Court will qualify "The Question Presented." They do that in pretty much every case that comes before them. Literally, the court will articulate the issue for review. 

For example, which Constitutional provision(s), statutes, jurisprudence, etc. will the issue proceed through? That has to be considered before guessing how the Court will rule. 

You mean proceeding through the lower courts?

Will all these lawsuits get consolidated at some point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

You are a good man. I quit at the 3rd paragragh

"For the past two years, we have examined Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its attempts to influence the 2018 midterms."

Yep. At least Mueller has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

You mean proceeding through the lower courts?

Will all these lawsuits get consolidated at some point?

To the first question - Sort of. If SCOTUS grants cert., they could frame the issue precisely how the lower Courts did, or differently. As you alluded to, it seems the primary concern is with Executive action that seemingly circumvents the legislative process. Thus, the question remains, how will that concern reduced to a judicial question and in what fashion? Will it be a means/ends analysis? Will they balance competing interests and if so, what level of scrutiny will be applicable? Will there be a particular Constitutional Clause or Federal Statute at center stage and if so, which ones? The list goes on...

Back to your original question, I think the answer to it varies on the basis of how the issue is framed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2019 at 8:50 PM, homersapien said:

Glad your expectations were met, but it looked more like a formless rant to me.

Not surprising my friend. I commented on each sentence in paragraph one, you responded with a personal attack. That lets me know I was right. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Not surprising my friend. I commented on each sentence in paragraph one, you responded with a personal attack. That lets me know I was right. Thank you.

So you don't think allowing the POTUS power to usurp Congress by allocating spending - against their will - represents a breach of our constitution?

Or is that you don't consider such a constitutional violation threatens our democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

To the first question - Sort of. If SCOTUS grants cert., they could frame the issue precisely how the lower Courts did, or differently. As you alluded to, it seems the primary concern is with Executive action that seemingly circumvents the legislative process. Thus, the question remains, how will that concern reduced to a judicial question and in what fashion? Will it be a means/ends analysis? Will they balance competing interests and if so, what level of scrutiny will be applicable? Will there be a particular Constitutional Clause or Federal Statute at center stage and if so, which ones? The list goes on...

Back to your original question, I think the answer to it varies on the basis of how the issue is framed. 

Can you please explain this - whats cert.?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Can you please explain this - whats cert.?

Thanks.

Certiorari, in terms of SCOTUS review, is a legal way of saying that a party is asking SCOTUS to review the circumstances in a petition. When a party asks the Court to review the entire record, they are seeking the court to grant a writ of certiorari, which essentially is means the Supreme Court has said “ok, we will review the case.” Or, the court can deny certiorari. There’s also “writs of certiorari before judgement,” through which the SCOTUS can review a decision directly from the District Court (ie, it “skips” the Court of Appeals”).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Certiorari, in terms of SCOTUS review, is a legal way of saying that a party is asking SCOTUS to review the circumstances in a petition. When a party asks the Court to review the entire record, they are seeking the court to grant a writ of certiorari, which essentially is means the Supreme Court has said “ok, we will review the case.” Or, the court can deny certiorari. There’s also “writs of certiorari before judgement,” through which the SCOTUS can review a decision directly from the District Court (ie, it “skips” the Court of Appeals”).

So what determines which case - out of many on the same subject - SCOTUS reviews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So what determines which case - out of many on the same subject - SCOTUS reviews?

A consensus of at least four (I think) justices who think the case should be reviewed. Chief Justice has the final say (I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

So you don't think allowing the POTUS power to usurp Congress by allocating spending - against their will - represents a breach of our constitution?

Or is that you don't consider such a constitutional violation threatens our democracy?

Nope. I disagree with your characterization of the situation. Against their will is misleading. The only reason they are not willing to fund the wall is their hatred of trump. They are all on record supporting it. So the liberals are in fact breaching the constitution by allowing their hatred for trump to dissuade them from protecting the nation. It is you, them, Democrats who refuse to accept the results of the election, who are threatening our democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2019 at 11:30 PM, jj3jordan said:

Nope. I disagree with your characterization of the situation. Against their will is misleading. The only reason they are not willing to fund the wall is their hatred of trump. They are all on record supporting it. So the liberals are in fact breaching the constitution by allowing their hatred for trump to dissuade them from protecting the nation. It is you, them, Democrats who refuse to accept the results of the election, who are threatening our democracy. 

First, it was a bipartisan bill that limited funding for the wall. 

Second, saying "hatred for Trump" was their motivation is irrelevant - their motivation is not the issue. 

Third, the American people agree with them and their job is to represent the people.

Ironically, it is your twisted logic that threatens the country. Our system consists of three co-equal branches.  It doesn't allow for the executive to arbitrarily override Congress in the matter of spending.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...